Content uploaded by Sandra Villalobos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandra Villalobos on Jan 07, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
AMERICANJails SEPTEMBER | OCTOBER 2012 | 17
Incarcerated men and women who maintain contact with sup-
portive family members are more likely to succeed after their release.
Although corrections practitioners and policymakers often under-
stand the positive role families can play, they may not know how to
involve the inmate’s loved ones as a resource within a correctional
setting.Researchonpeoplereturningfromprisonshowsthatfamily
members can be valuable sources of support during incarceration
and after release. For example, prison inmates who had more contact
with their families and who reported positive relationships overall
are less likely to be re-incarcerated (Martinez & Christian, 2009).
Families can motivate formerly incarcerated relatives to seek or con-
tinue drug treatment or mental health care, and they most frequently
provide housing for newly released family members.
Family
AND RECIDIVISM
The
ryan shanahan an D sanDra Villalobos aguDelo
18 | SEPTEMBER | OCTOBER 2012 AMERICANJails
To date, most of the research and
programming that discusses the use
of family resources to aid reentry has
focused on prisons. Because jails are
substantially different, it is not clear
which policies and practices can be
applied successfully. To determine
the effectiveness of family-support
strategies for people in jail, the Vera
Institute of Justice (Vera) launched
the Close to Home project, which
provided training and technical
assistance to two jails in Maryland
and one jail in Wisconsin.
The project’s name, Close to
Home, reflects that jails are often
located geographically close to the
family and friends of inmates, and
thus they can easily stay in contact
with their families and friends.
With funding from the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Vera initiated a
pilotstudyoftheRelationalInquiry
Tool(RIT)inthethreejailsand
provided complementary communi-
cation techniques intended to help
the inmates plan for their return
to society. It was developed with
support from the National Institute
of Corrections and in partner-
ship with Safer Foundation and
the Department of Corrections of
Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, and
Oklahoma.
Relational Inquiry Tool
The staff of Vera’s Family Justice
ProgramcreatedRITtohelpcor-
rections staff identify the family
resources of their inmates. (Note: The
Family Justice Program interprets
“family” broadly to include imme-
diate, extended, and elected family
members, such as romantic partners,
friends, neighbors, and clergy.)
RITisaseriesofeightquestions
designed to introduce inmates to the
idea of involving supportive family
members as a resource. In particular,
it was developed for case manage-
ment and reentry planning, and as
a complement to standard correc-
tions risk and needs assessments.
Case managers use the information
from the eight questions to con-
nect with family members who
could help them meet some of the
inmate’s reentry needs. Those with
family-based reentry resources may
require fewer social service referrals.
Moreover, conversations spurred
byRITcouldbuildrapportbetween
staff and inmates. The aim was to
improve long-term outcomes for
former inmates, their families, and
their communities.
Close to Home Project
Close to Home, launched in
October 2009 and concluded in April
2011, proceeded along two tracks:
1. Personnel in three jails (two in
Maryland and one in Wisconsin)
were trained by Vera to provide
thejailversionofRITtotheir
inmates.
2.DuringRITtraining,Verastaff
conducted qualitative and quan-
titative research to gauge inmate
andstaffattitudestowardRIT.
Research
Vera staff had two goals for their
research. The first goal was to assess
RIT’sutilityinfacilitiesofvarying
size and location. The partnering
jails were the Montgomery County
Correctional Facility (MCCF)
and the Montgomery County
Pre-ReleaseCenter(Pre-Release
Center) in Maryland, and the Green
LakeCountyCorrectionalFacility
(GLCCF)inWisconsin.Thethree
facilities differed in terms of size and
setting (see Table 1).
The second research goal was
to gather information about the
inmates’ families and other sources
of social support, their experience
maintaining contact with family
members while in jail, their thoughts
about returning to the community,
and the impact of their incarceration
on loved ones. Vera staff conducted
surveys with incarcerated men and
women and gathered more in-depth
information during interviews.
Family members were surveyed
with similar questions to learn about
family members’ perspectives and
opinions.
Implementation
Vera trained participating jail staff
touseRITtoqueryincarcerated
people about their strengths, chal-
lenges, and the supportive people in
their lives. Jail staff were also trained
on the benefits of family support for
inmates, how to introduce the tool,
and ways to follow up on the infor-
mation that participants shared.
Before implementing the tool
at each site, Vera held work group
meetings of staff ranging from case
managers to parole officers to iden-
tify policies and practices that could
be more supportive of incarcerated
people’s relationships. Vera staff
gathered information about the util-
ityofRITbyconductinginterviews
of randomly selected inmates who
completedRIT.Theyalsosurveyed
and interviewed jail personnel about
theimplementationanduseofRIT.
Table 1. Characteristics of Jails Participating in the Close to Home Project.
Facility Location Capacity Average Daily
Population
Category
Green Lake County
Correctional
Facility, Green Lake,
Wisconsin
Rural 108 66 Small
(1–49 beds)
Montgomery County
Pre-Release Center,
Rockville, Maryland
Urban 177 170 Medium
(50–249
beds)
Montgomery County
Correctional Facility,
Boyds, Maryland
Urban 1,028 760 Large
(250+ beds)
AMERICANJails SEPTEMBER | OCTOBER 2012 | 21
Project Participants
MCCF was the largest jail that
participated in the Close to Home
project.Locatedinanurban
Maryland county less than 20 miles
outside Washington, D.C., it houses
men and women awaiting trial and
those who are serving sentences of
up to 18 months. Ninety-five percent
of people in the jurisdiction’s facili-
ties are from the county and are not
transferred to a State prison. People
of color are overrepresented, and
most individuals are under maxi-
mum-security supervision.
MCCF has created an environ-
ment that emphasizes what Warden
RobertGreencalls“reentryforall.”
This ambitious goal signals a com-
mitment to prepare everyone at
the facility for reentry, even though
some inmates will be transferred
from MCCF to State or Federal
prisons. MCCF provides educational
and vocational opportunities, as well
as programming and treatment for
mental health and substance use.
In addition, MCCF has a dedicated
reentry case manager. Inmates who
expect to be released within three
months can voluntarily participate
in case management services to pre-
pare for reentry.
LikeMCCF,thePre-Release
Center is located in an urban setting.
People incarcerated at the 171-bed
facility are scheduled for release
within 12 months. The average
length of stay is between three and
five months, and most of the inmates
return to the nearby community.
The environment at the Pre-
ReleaseCenterismorelikearesi-
dential step-down program than a
jail.ThePre-ReleaseCenterprovides
a continuum of programming, has
an open campus, and allows contact
visits. Visiting is offered seven days
a week, and as individuals achieve
privileges, they can have unlimited
visits. Case managers typically have
caseloads of 18 to 25 men or women,
allowing them to meet with inmates
as needed. Families are included in
case planning and can be trained as
“sponsors.”
GLCCFwasthesmallestjailin
the Close to Home project. The jail
is located in a small, rural county in
east-central Wisconsin with a popu-
lationofabout19,000.GLCCFhasan
average daily population of 60, and
the majority of incarcerated individ-
uals are Caucasian. During the Close
to Home project, the jail moved from
a 40-plus-bed, linear-style court-
house jail to a state-of-the-art facility
with a 108-bed capacity. At the for-
mer facility, staff functioned merely
as custodians; the education, mental-
health, and substance-use needs
of incarcerated men and women
were not addressed. The sheriff and
corrections administration used the
change of facilities as an occasion to
change the culture.
Findings
As noted earlier, information was
gathered from the inmates through
surveys and interviews, whereas
information about families and
staff came from surveys alone. The
following three sections describe
findings that pertain to each of these
groups. The final section discusses
the findings related to the imple-
mentationofRITandcorresponding
training.
Inmate Reponses. Among the
inmates surveyed, 84 percent
reported that their families were
supportive during their incarcera-
tion. Most inmates planned to rely
on their family (82%) and friends
(74%) to help them meet their needs,
with a much smaller percentage
(40%) planning to rely on services
from government agencies or non-
profit organizations. In comparing
the findings to similar project work
with prison facilities, Vera staff
found that a greater percentage of
people in jail than in prison reported
that they rely on friends (diZerega &
Agudelo, 2011).
Sixty-seven percent of incarcer-
ated survey respondents were
parents. Almost all of their children
(97%) lived with a family member,
and 66 percent of those children
were living with their other parent.
Eighty percent of respondents in
jail reported having visitors, and 40
percent said they had a visit at least
once a month. These visitation rates
were higher than what Vera found in
similar surveys of people in prison
(diZerega & Agudelo, 2011). Among
people incarcerated for up to two
years, those in prison were visited an
average of 9.5 times a year, whereas
those in jail received an average of
16 visits a year (diZerega & Agudelo,
2011).Respondentswhoreported
having close relationships with their
mothers, fathers, and significant
others also had higher numbers of
visits. Table 2 shows a comparison
of the results from Vera’s research in
jails and prisons.
Vera also found that 59 percent of
men and women inmates welcomed
the opportunity to discuss their fami-
lies with jail staff. This noteworthy
finding runs counter to a common
perception among corrections person-
nel that inmates are unwilling to
discuss personal matters with them.
Family Responses. The majority
of family members (85%) reported
visiting at least once a week. Visiting
family members listed numerous
barriers to staying in contact with
their loved one, including distance
(29%); costs—such as gas, tolls, and
for some, renting a car—(24%); and
facility rules (23%). Family members
drove an average of 30 miles each
way to visit and also reported the
Table 2. Comparing Results from Vera’s Research in Jails and Prisons.
“Which people do you plan
to rely on when you return to
the community?”
Respondents in
Jails
Respondents in
Prisons
Family 82.1% 92%
Friends 73.8% 66%
22 | SEPTEMBER | OCTOBER 2012 AMERICANJails
cost of phone calls as a significant
barrier to communication (39%).
While a large majority of visiting
family members reported that staff
welcomed them when they visited
(78%), almost as many said they did
not receive any information about
their loved one from staff (76%), and
some said staff did not reach out to
family members with concerns or
questions they had about the incar-
cerated family member (68%).
Staff Responses. Most person-
nel (99%) said that families are an
important resource for reentry, and
that families can help find stable
housing and employment, improve
drug treatment outcomes, and
reduce recidivism. However, only 64
percent of staff reported involving
family members in case management
or reentry planning, and 58 percent
reported that families were involved
in their facility’s programming.
Facility Responses to RIT Project
The three facilities participat-
ing in Close to Home had dif-
ferentresponsestoRITproject.
These responses stemmed from
administrative challenges at the
time of implementation, concurrent
programming that complemented
RIT,andtheexistenceorimple-
mentation of a more family-focused
culture at the facility. The two sites
in Maryland chose case managers to
pilotRIT.InWisconsin,corrections
officers were trained to administer
RIT.Unexpectedly,thecorrections
officers—not case managers—had
themostsuccessintegratingRIT
into their standard case flow. Staff
unanimouslyreportedthatRIT
gave them a better understanding
oftheinmatesatGLCCF.Further,
93 percent of staff reported that
theywouldrecommendRITto
other jail professionals. The inmates
interviewedatGLCCFfelttheir
experiencecompletingRITwith
corrections officers was beneficial.
Because of the overwhelmingly
positive response to the project, cor-
rectionalofcersatGLCCFwillcon-
tinuetouseRITwithinmateswho
are held for more than two weeks.
Practitioners and policymakers
who want to involve inmates’ fami-
lies in their programs should note
thatGLCCFleadershipconsistently
expressed support for a family-
focused approach and envisioned
correctionsstaffasrolemodels.Lt.
JoelGerthsaysthisaboutRITat
GLCCF:
AtGLCCF,RITwasorigi-
nally administered by mental
health staff. The enthusiasm
and buy-in staff displayed
during Vera’s training, as well
as the introduction of a new
avenue of communication
between staff and the men and
women incarcerated in the
facility, were key factors in the
decision to shift this responsi-
bility away from mental health
practitioners. Vera’s training
and technical assistance helped
staff feel confident in discuss-
ing these topics with incarcer-
ated individuals and allowed
staff to see positive changes in
the incarcerated individuals
they work with—a departure
from the usual atmosphere of
a correctional facility…. The
more they understand why
they do the job and the impact
they are capable of having
on another person’s life, the
greater the impact on morale.
StefanLoBuglio,ChiefofPre-
releaseandReentryatMontgomery
County’sPre-ReleaseCenter,
believes wholeheartedly in a family-
focused approach. “The commitment
to work with families leads to an
institutional culture that promotes
respect and drives the rehabilitative
focusofafacility,”saysLoBuglio.
“The respect we show family
members leads to cooperation and
compliance with program rules.”
The positive perception of fam-
ilyatthePre-ReleaseCentercreates
a markedly different environment
from traditional correctional settings
because the policies and procedures
in place foster a family-oriented
environment that emphasizes
people’s strengths. The inmates at
thePre-ReleaseCenterwelcomed
RITbecauseithelpedthemcreate
lists of potential visitors and reflect
on people who had been supportive
as well as those who are not invested
in their success or may not influence
them in a positive way.
Inaddition,RITprogramrevealed
a need for corrections personnel
to build rapport with residents.
However, because of various con-
straints on the facility, the case
managers were assigned to pilot
RIT.Thoughcorrectionsstaffwere
trained by Vera on the value of
integrating family information into
their work, they have not yet admin-
isteredRIT.
The size of MCCF made imple-
mentationofRITmoredifcultthan
in the smaller facilities. Because
of fiscal constraints, MCCF case
managers were working on multiple
housing units with caseloads of
more than 100 people. These large
caseloads hindered their ability to
implementRITeffectively.Case
managers reported feeling over-
whelmed, resisted additional work
(suchasRIT),andoftendidnotfol-
low the recommended directions for
administering the tool. For example,
Vera staff trained case managers
to use a script that explained the
purposeofRITanddescribedthe
importance of family in reentry
planning. During interviews, some
inmateswhohadcompletedRIT
told Vera staff that certain case man-
agers rushed through the questions,
did not explain how information
about their families would be used,
and complained about being forced
to use the tool.
When MCCF staff administered
RITaccordingtoVera’sguidelines,
incarcerated people responded posi-
tively. For example, a man motivated
by his young daughter to deal with
his drug addiction told researchers
thatcompletingRIT“helpedpickme
up and change my attitude,” add-
ing that the conversation changed
his perception of his case manager
and perhaps her perception of him.
24 | SEPTEMBER | OCTOBER 2012 AMERICANJails
He noted that after the conversation,
she completed paperwork to trans-
fer him to a unit where he could
participate in drug treatment and
return to the community—and his
daughter—sooner.
Given the challenges at MCCF, it is
notable that the reentry case man-
ager, Wendy Miller-Cochran, chose to
continueusingRITaftertheCloseto
Home project concluded. She says:
TheRelationalInquiryTool
is a welcome addition to the
reentry social work assessment
procedures at MCCF, espe-
cially since family involvement
complements the professional
and community services avail-
able to individuals returning
home. Family relationships can
be the most powerful resource
available to men and women
in jail, and this tool enables me
to explore family relationships
and identify other supportive
peopleintheclient’slife.RIT
allows me to assess the level of
support available to the client,
and, if appropriate, seek to
involve the support person [or
people] as part of an individu-
al’s reentry planning.
Conclusion
The overall results from this
project suggest that inmates in jails,
like those in prisons, rely on family
members to support them during
their incarceration, and also as they
reenter the community. Because
thousands of people cycle in and out
of jail every year, it may be possible
to reduce these numbers by testing
and implementing ways for families
to help reduce the negative impact
of short-term incarceration on their
loved ones and to help them reenter
society successfully.
Additional Resources
Mental Health Treatment
• CenterforSubstanceAbuseTreatment.(2004).Substance abuse
treatment and family therapy. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP)
Series,No.39.DHHSPublicationNo.(SMA)04-3957.Rockville,MD:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Family Motivation
• Dalton,K.S.(May/June2004).Beyondtransition—Workingwith
inmate families. American Jails, 18(2), 48–53.
Housing
• LaVigne,N.G.,Visher,C.,&Castro,J.(2004).Chicago prisoners’ expe-
riences returning home. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
• Nelson,Deess,P.,&Allen,C.(1999).Therstmonthout:Post-
incarceration experiences in New York City. New York, NY: Vera
Institute of Justice.
• Sullivan,E.,Mino,M.,Nelson,K.,&Pope,J.(2002).Familiesasa
resourceinrecoveryfromdrugabuse:AnevaluationofLaBodega
de la Familia. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
• Naser,R.L.,&Visher,C.A.(2006).Familymembers’experiencesof
incarceration and reentry. Western Criminology Review, 7(2), 20–31.
Child Care
• Glaze,L.,&Maruschak,L.M.(2008).Parentsinprisonandtheir
minor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report.
Overrepresentation of Minorities
• Schiraldi,V.,&Ziedenberg,J.(2003).Race and incarceration in
Maryland, A policy analysis by the Justice Policy Institute commissioned
by Maryland’s Legislative Black Caucus. Washington, DC: Justice Policy
Institute.
Moreover, it reveals that, at least
in some jails, corrections person-
nel as well as case managers can
be assigned to help incarcerated
people connect with social supports.
However, to access this potential,
a shift in organizational culture
toward a family-focused orientation
may need to occur, as evidenced by
thevaryingdegreesofRITaccep-
tance in the three jail facilities. More
work is needed to determine the
most effective strategies for imple-
mentingRITandwhetherproper
implementation will yield the
desired outcomes of positive behav-
ioral change, a reduction in disci-
plinary infractions in facilities, and
lower recidivism rates. The present
results suggest, however, that jails
are indeed a promising arena for
developing family-focused reentry
planning. ■
References
diZerega, M., & Agudelo, S. V. (2011).
Piloting a tool for reentry: A promising
approach to engaging family members.
New York, NY: Vera Institute of
Justice.
Martinez, D. J. & Christian, J. (2009). The
familial relationships of former pris-
oners: Examining the link between
residence and informal support
mechanisms. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 38(2), 201–224.
Ryan Shanahan, a senior program
associate at the Vera Institute of Justice’s
Family Justice Program, works with
criminal and juvenile justice agencies
and community-based organizations.
She holds a master’s degree from the
University of Maryland, where she is
working toward a doctorate. For
more information, please contact
Ms. Shanahan at 212–376–3071 or
rshanahan@vera.org.
Sandra Villalobos Agudelo, a Vera
research associate, evaluates the Family
Justice Program’s work and studies
the roles families play for incarcerated
people. She holds a master’s degree
in psychology from Universidad de los
Andes in Bogotá and a master’s degree
in urban policy analysis and manage-
ment from Milano, The New School for
Management and Urban Policy.
For more information about the
Vera Institute, visit www.vera.org.
